QUESTIONS 
OF  THE  DAY 


John  F*  Ooacher 
Number 


I.  THE  MORAL  PREREQUISITES  OF 
A LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 

By  Felix  Adler 


In  this  Series  there  are  two  other  addresses  by  the  same  author : 
n.  “The  Punishment  of  Individuals  and  of  Peoples”; 
m.  “National  Self-Determination  and  its  Limits”; 
which  will  be  mailed,  on  receipt  of  ten  cents  each,  by 

THE  AMERICAN  ETHICAL  UNION 

2 West  64th  Street,  New  York  City 


February,  1919. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/moralprerequisitOOadle 


J©lm  F.  Gottoher 

Nxunber. — 

THE  MORAL  PREREQUISITES  OF  A LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS* 

By  FELIX  ADLER 

Of  the  moral  conditions  on  which  depends  anything  like  a suc- 
cessful formation  of  a League  of  Nations,  the  first  I would  men- 
tion is  truthfulness,  and  more  particularly  the  truthful  presenta- 
tion to  our  minds  of  the  actual  fitness  in  temper  and  development 
of  the  peoples  that  have  to  be  considered  as  potential  members  of 
such  a league.  Among  the  phantoms  that  follow  in  the  train  of 
war  like  Diirer’s  Apocalyptic  riders  on  their  gaunt  steeds — 
Famine,  Plague,  and  Rev'olution — is  Falsehood  with  her  leering 
face.  Nothing  is  more  shocking  to  innocent  moral  sense,  nothing 
has  caused  more  suppressed  indignation,  than  the  systematic 
employment  of  falsehood  in  this  war.  Deliberate  misstatement 
is  the  most  unmistakable  species  of  untruth.  Withholding  a 
knowledge  of  the  facts,  with  a view  of  lulling  the  public  into  a 
false  state  of  security,  is  another  species.  Suppressing  certain 
material  facts,  emphasizing  and  distorting  others,  with  a view  of 
creating  a false  impression,  is  another  species.  In  certain  noto- 
rious instances  these  methods  have  been  employed  with  evil  in- 
tent by  the  military^  caste,  in  its  desperate  struggle  to  prolong  its 
domination.  But  similar  methods  have  also  been  used  with  good 
intent  on  the  other  side,  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  the  will  to 
carry  on  the  war,  and  of  concentrating  antagonism  to  the  foe. 

The  censorship  and  the  officially  influenced  press  have  been  the 
chief  agents  entrusted  with  the  performance  of  this  function. 

It  is  profoundly  and  almost  desperately  felt  by  many  that  even 
in  normal  times  some  of  the  leading  organs  of  publicity,  not  alone 
from  self  interest  but  even  in  the  pursuit  of  disinterested  objects, 
are  channels  for  the  dissemination  of  actual  or  constructive 
unveracity.  There  seems  to  be  a distrust  of  the  ability  of  the 
public  to  digest  the  truth  and  to  form  its  judgment  on  the  basis 
of  an  exact  presentation  of  all  the  facts.  In  the  recent  epidemic 
there  was  a general  complaint  that  in  the  poorer  quarters  many 

* An  address  given  before  the  New  York  Society  for  Ethical  Culture  Sun- 
day, November  17,  1918. 


I 


of  the  people  could  not  be  prevailed  on  to  open  their  windows. 
\\  hen  shall  we  be  willing  to  open  the  windows  of  the  mind 
threatened  as  it  is  with  suffocation  by  the  vicious  germs  of  false- 
hood and  to  let  the  fresh  air  of  truth  blow  through  our  senses? 

Of  course,  the  more  outrageous  forms  of  falsehood,  like  direct 
misstatement  or  the  suppression  or  garbling  of  facts,  are  easily 
detected.  But  there  is  another  species  of  fictitiousness  which  may 
be  blameless  and  pure  in  purpose,  but  is  nevertheless  exceedingly 
perilous.  It  is  the  arbitrary  projection  of  one's  ideals  upon 
people  and  conditions,  the  representation  to  oneself  and  others 
that  things  actually  are  what  one  desires  them  to  be. 

Now  it  is  this  kind  of  “idealistic”  falsehood  that  we  must  be 
on  our  guard  against  in  discussing  the  League  of  Nations.  The 
peril  is  manifest  in  the  phrase  “free  peoples,”  which  is  being  used 
so  commonly  now.  It  is  said  that  the  free  peoples  of  the  earth 
are  to  form  the  new  league  and  establish  the  new  government. 
Now  the  word  “free”  may  be  used  in  two  significations,  and  it  is 
of  vital  importance  that  these  two  significations  should  be  dis- 
criminated. In  the  one  sense  a free  people  is  a people  so  informed 
with  the  spirit  of  independence  as  to  be  intolerant  of  a foreign 
yoke,  a people  that  has  the  energy  to  shake  off  a yoke  of  that  kind 
when  it  has  been  imposed.  The  word  “free”  in  the  other  signi- 
fication means  capable  of  self-government:  a people  that  knows 
its  own  mind  and  will,  and  is  capable  of  enforcing  its  will  in  the 
sphere  of  politics. 

The  spirit  of  freedom  as  synonymous  with  independence  is 
latent  in  almost  every  human  tribe.  None  but  the  most  menial, 
the  most  abject,  in  whom  long  continued  servility  has  extinguished 
the  spark  of  human  self-respect,  are  without  the  desire  for  inde- 
pendence. Even  when  it  cannot  effectuate  itself  it  glows  be- 
neath the  surface.  The  wildest  races  resent  alien  domination. 
The  Arabs  of  the  desert  are  free  in  spirit  like  the  wind  that  blows 
over  their  sands.  Lord  Cromer  in  his  book  on  imperialism  points 
out  that  India  is  restive  under  English  dominion,  that  Algiers  is 
inwardly  discontented  under  French  rule.  He  takes  pains  to 
dispel  the  legend  that  the  Russians  have  conciliated  the  tribes  of 
Central  Asia.  Everywhere,  he  intimates,  the  spirit  of  the  subject 
races  can  be  held  down  only  forcibly — and  as  an  imperialist  he 
believes  in  coercion.  To  speak  then  of  the  League  of  Nations  as 


2 


one  formed  by  the  “free”  peoples  of  the  earth  in  the  sense  of 
those  who  are  unwilling  to  be  subject  to  coercion,  is  to  conjure  up 
the  very  spirits  of  turbulence  and  expect  them  to  come  together 
in  a covenant  of  order. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  a free  people  is  a people  capable  of  self- 
government,  how  many  of  the  peoples  at  present  will  even  meas- 
urably answer  to  this  description?  The  most  advanced  are 
England,  America  and  France.  But  if  self-government  means 
enacting  the  real  will  of  the  people,  even  these  countries  are 
balked  in  expressing  their  will,  by  the  interposition  of  party 
machinery,  by  secret  diplomacy  and  the  like.  Still  they  are  the 
most  advanced.  Germany  is  only  entering  upon  the  path  of 
political  self-rule;  Russia  is  in  chaos;  the  Balkan  peoples  are  in  a 
state  of  turmoil.  If  the  actual  possession  of  freedom  by  the  “ free 
peoples”  who  are  to  constitute  it  is  the  condition  of  the  formation 
of  a league,  then  the  whole  project  is  hopeless  from  the  start. 

In  my  view  the  league  should  be  conceived  not  as  a body  which 
presupposes  the  freedom  of  its  members,  but  as  an  instrumentality 
for  their  education  into  freedom.  It  can  fulfill  a large  and  gen- 
erous purpose  through  the  example  of  those  nations  which  are 
more  advanced,  although  they  too  need  further  development. 
It  can  further  fulfill  its  purpose  by  requiring  in  all  states  the  neces- 
sary preconditions  of  self-government,  such  as  a universal  system 
of  compulsory  education;  and  still  further  and  in  a more  deep- 
reaching  way,  by  training  the  members  of  the  league  to  a con- 
siderate appreciation  of  the  needs  and  interests  of  their  neighbor 
nations  and  by  inculcating  the  habit  of  measuring  the  rightfulness 
of  one’s  own  ends  and  interests  by  the  effect  which  their  satisfac- 
tion would  have  upon  the  interests  of  others.  The  really  free 
people  is  that  one  in  which  the  rightfulness  of  the  claims  of  one’s 
own  group  is  judged  by  the  effect  of  their  satisfaction  on  other 
groups.  And  this  habit,  if  acquired  by  the  nations  participating 
in  the  league,  will  also  react  favorably  upon  the  solution  of  the 
manacing  domestic  problems  that  exist  within  each  people. 

There  is  no  royal  road  to  the  ideal  state  of  things.  There  is  no 
short-cut  that  will  realize  democracy  in  the  world  through  the 
mere  fact  of  casting  off  yokes.  Democracy,  in  any  genuine 
sense  of  the  word,  will  be  the  fruit  of  gradual  and  difficult  endeav- 
ors. Instead  of  founding  the  league  on  the  false  assumption  that 


3 


those  who  enter  into  it  are  already  the  free  peoples  of  the  world, 
we  should  regard  it  as  a means  of  educating  the  peoples  that 
belong  to  it  unto  freedom. 

In  discussing  the  moral  prerequisites  of  a League  of  Nations  I 
wish  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible  the  consideration  of  technical 
details.  But  certain  practical  difficulties  are  so  obvious  and  so 
portentous  that  I cannot  altogether  avoid  reference  to  them. 
Especially  misleading  is  the  prerequisite  that  the  league  shall  be 
a league  of  justice,  that  the  peace  consummated  shall  be  a peace 
of  justice.  It  might  be  better  to  say  a piece  rather  than  a peace  of 
justice.  An  editorial  in  one  of  our  metropolitan  newspapers  a few 
days  ago  contained  the  statement  that  at  the  Peace  Conference 
the  map  of  Europe  would  be  redrawn  in  such  a way  that  justice 
would  be  done  to  all  the  nations  of  the  world — a statement  appall- 
ing in  its  ignorance!  For  how  can  anyone  not  deluded  by  catch- 
words expect  that  by  one  curt  and  immediate  decision  justice 
shall  be  done  to  the  great  variety  of  peoples  and  peoplets  that  are 
thronging  to  the  peace  table?  How,  without  superhuman  wis- 
dom to  guide,  can  the  accumulated  wrongs  of  centuries,  and  their 
rankling  after-effects,  be  wiped  out?  The  wrong  done  in  1871  is 
only  one.  There  is  the  wrong  done  to  Poland  over  a century 
ago;  the  wrong  done  to  the  Lithuanians,  the  Ukranians  many 
centuries  ago;  the  wrong  done  to  the  Jews  two  thousand  years  ago. 
Somehow  all  these  ancient  wrongs  that  have  slumbered  long  are 
starting  up  into  new  life.  But  the  Syrians  in  this  city  held  a 
meeting  recently  protesting  against  the  reconstruction  of  a Jew- 
ish state,  on  the  ground  that  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Palestine,  being  non-Jews,  ought  not  to  be  subjected  to  the  un- 
democratic principle  of  a rule  of  the  minority,  and  objecting  to 
the  promoted  immigration  of  Zionists  from  all  parts  of  the  world 
into  the  country  inhabited  at  present  by  a majority  of  Arabs. 
How  will  it  be  possible  to  adjudicate  on  the  principle  of  exact 
justice  all  such  conflicting  claims,  the  claims,  too,  of  Italy  and 
Greece  in  Albania,  of  the  Croatians,  the  Roumanians,  the  Czecho- 
slovaks and  the  others?  Some  kind  of  compromise  will  no  doubt 
have  to  be  reached.  But  any  compromise  that  can  be  proposed 
will  leave  many  of  those  affected  by  it  discontented.  And  will  it 
appear,  can  it  appear,  justice  in  their  eyes? 

The  greatest  peril  of  all  has  been  already  pointed  out  by  many 


4 


who  object  to  the  league.  It  is  that  the  league  may  be  used  to 
sanction  the  status  quo,  the  state  of  things  which  will  exist  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  Peace  Conference  (or  at  the  formation  of  the 
league)  with  all  the  elements  of  unfairness  that  will  inevitably  re- 
main unexpurgated,  and  that  thereafter  those  who  seek  relief  in 
more  equitable  arrangements  will  find  the  whole  deterrent  force 
of  the  league  used  against  them.  They  will  have  to  come  with 
their  complaints  before  a tribunal  in  which  those  who  profit  by 
existing  arrangements  have  the  major  influence  and  power.  The 
decision  will  go  against  them,  and  if  they  rebel  they  will  be 
treated  as  disturbers  of  the  peace.  On  the  other  hand,  if,  in  the 
case  of  a serious  controversy,  the  decision  should  go  against  the 
most  powerful  members  or  member  of  the  league,  the  weaker 
members  will  be  impotent  to  enforce  the  decision. 

How  far  from  imaginary  this  supposition  is  may  be  illustrated 
by  a crucial  instance  which  has  been  brought  forw'ard  by  Mr. 
Brailsford  in  his  admirable  book  on  A League  of  Nations.  Brails- 
ford  is  thoroughly  English  in  feeling,  but  he  is  also  one  of  those 
rare  minds  that  are  able  to  divest  themselves  to  a singular  degree 
of  national  prejudices.  In  discussing  the  question  of  the  freedom 
of  the  seas,  he  admits  that  “ Britannia  rules  the  waves,”  and  will 
insist  on  ruling  the  waves;  in  other  words,  that  the  superiority  of 
the  British  fleet  to  any  one  or  possibly  to  any  two  of  the  largest 
fleets  of  her  neighbors  will  be  maintained.  England,  to  secure  her 
food  supply  and  maintain  her  scattered  Empire,  will  maintain 
her  naval  supremacy.  If  disarmament  is  proposed,  the  disarma- 
ment must  be  such  as  to  leave  the  relative  superiority,  the  propor- 
tion of  naval  strength,  the  same.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war 
the  British  fleet  was  already  the  mightiest  on  the  water.  Since 
then  it  has  trebled  its  tonnage.  It  is  the  most  formidable  weapon 
that  human  ingenuity  has  forged.  It  was  the  British  fleet  that 
put  the  iron  ring  of  the  blockade  around  Germany.  It  was  the 
British  fleet  that  swept  the  seas  of  enemy  craft.  It  is  the  British 
fleet  that  has  starved  the  Central  Powers  into  submission . Dwell- 
ing on  these  facts  it  is  not  hard  to  realize  the  difficulty  of  con- 
structing on  the  basis  of  justice  a partnership  between  a number 
of  peoples  quite  inferior  in  power,  especially  in  sea-power  and  in 
money  power,  and  one  or  two  peoples  of  gigantic  power. 

The  British  Empire  extends  over  half  the  globe.  If,  as  has 


5 


been  proposed  by  some  writers,  the  League  of  Nations  virtually 
takes  the  form  of  the  alliance  of  America  with  this  power,  the 
might  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  will  be  so  overwhelming  that  other 
stocks  and  races  will  be  able  to  live  only  on  sufferance.  How 
can  they  meet  these  giant  nations  on  the  level?  How  could 
economic  pressure  be  successfully  exerted  if  in  any  case  the  major- 
ity of  the  international  court  should  find  against  Great  Britain? 
The  answer  usually  given  is  that  an  international  fleet  shall 
police  the  seas,  and  assure  the  safety  of  her  food  supply  to  Eng- 
land,— an  international  fleet  doing  police  duty  on  all  the  waters 
of  the  world.  But  would  not  the  quota  of  England  in  such  a fleet 
have  to  be  superior  to  the  quota  of  other  contributing  nations  in 
order  to  give  her  security  and  the  sense  of  security?  What  then 
remains  save  the  hope  and  belief  that  England  will  use  her  supe- 
rior power  conscientiously?  Brailsford  himself  presents  or 
quotes  this  solution  somewhat  diffidently  but  he  has  no  other. 
And  it  is  no  solution  because,  as  Lincoln  said,  there  is  no  class  that 
is  good  enough  to  be  entrusted  with  the  guardianship  of  other 
classes;  and  there  is  no  nation  that  is  so  unselfish  as  to  be  safely 
allowed  to  have  at  its  mercy  the  destinies  of  other  nations.  Nay, 
granted  that  a people  is  wholly  and  purely  disinterested  in  inten- 
tion, no  human  beings  can  so  far  escape  the  unconscious  influence 
of  egotism  as  not  to  see  the  interests  of  the  world  in  the  light  of 
their  own  interests. 

As  the  result  of  the  war  the  Anglo-Saxon  people  are  prepond- 
erant. Russia,  the  habitual  enemy  of  England,  is  for  the  time 
being  helpless.  The  Central  Powers  are  defeated.  France  and 
Italy  have  been  greatly  weakened,  and  will  in  important  respects 
be  dependent  on  England  and  the  United  States.  The  Latin 
nations  do  not  compare  in  population  or  in  resources  with  the 
people  that  own  the  richest  territories  of  the  globe.  If  the  League 
of  Nations  is  to  be  employed  in  order  to  make  this  state  of  things 
definitive,  the  attempt  will  breed  disaster.  The  hegemony  of  any 
one  race  and  the  tutelage  of  others  is  not  in  the  interest  either  of 
the  sovereign  race  or  its  w'ards.  And  in  the  long  run  the  dream 
of  Anglo-Saxon  world  supremacy  is  not  feasible.  Russia,  with 
her  180,000,000  and  her  untapped  riches,  will  recover.  The 
Central  Powers  in  time  will  find  themselves.  The  East  will  not 
always  remain  dependent.  The  child  nations  will  grow  up.  The 

6 


league  should  foster  this  evolution,  not  try  to  prevent  or  hamper 
it.  The  kind  of  justice  it  dispenses  should  be  flexible,  not  hard 
and  fast.  The  understandings  must  be  such  as  to  be  subject  to 
revision.  The  legitimate  desire  and  need  for  expansion  must  be 
gratified,  not  strangled.  The  late  comers  must  not  find  them- 
selves excluded  from  the  table,  and  bidden  to  feed  on  the  leavings. 

The  new  fellowship,  if  it  is  to  answer  its  purpose  at  all,  must  be 
such  as  to  assist  the  freedom  of  its  members,  and  not  be  based  on 
the  false  assumption  that  they  who  have  shaken  off  autocracy  are 
already  free.  It  must  recognize  that  it  can  only  at  present  make 
the  bare  beginnings  of  doing  justice;  it  must  be  a flexible  instru- 
ment for  more  and  more  largely  doing  justice  as  time  goes  by. 
These  are  two  main  contentions  that  I have  to  advance  against 
the  current  notion  of  the  league. 

And  now  let  us  ask  what  can  positively  be  accomplished,  the 
situation  being  what  it  is, — for  the  idea  of  the  new  fellowship  of 
peoples  is  too  precious,  too  much  an  object  of  aspiration  and 
longing  among  the  war-scourged  millions  to  be  lightly  set  aside 
or  to  be  relinquished  because  of  the  obstacles,  heavy  as  they  are, 
that  stand  in  the  way  of  the  full  realization  of  what  it  may  some 
day  come  to  mean.  A beginning  can  be  made;  something — and 
that  not  a little — can  be  done  at  once.  .And  here  I urge  the  prime 
importance  of  an  international  legislature  as  against  a mere  court 
of  arbitration.  .A  parliament  of  nations  should  be  elected  by  the 
different  national  parliaments,  with  representation  from  the 
laboring  class  and  all  other  important  groups  in  each  people. 
If  there  is  to  be  democracy,  then  we  must  have  a law-making 
body,  because  democracy  is  distinguished  from  other  forms  of 
government  mainly  by  the  fact  that  law-making  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  representatives  of  the  people.  Judges  may  be  found  in  a 
monarchy  as  impartial  and  incorruptible  as  in  a democracy.  .A 
bureaucracy  may  be  found  in  a monarchy  as  honest  and  efficient. 
as  in  a democracy.  If  Germany  to-day  is  to  pass  out  of  the 
storms  that  assail  her,  it  will  be  to  her  trained  bureaucracy  that 
the  result  will  be  due.  But  a legislature  enacting  the  will  of  the 
people  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  people  is  the  prerogative 
of  any  people  that  deserves  in  any  degree  the  name  of  freedom. 
An  international  legislative  body,  therefore,  is  essential  if  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  society  of  nations  is  to  be  on  the  democratic  plan. 


7 


The  functions  of  this  body'  will  be,  in  the  first  place,  to  garner  up 
some  of  the  moral  results  of  this  war,  to  issue  a new  set  of  moral 
commandments  and  prohibitions,  to  forbid  for  all  future  time 
certain  enormities  in  the  methods  of  warfare,  such  as  the  use  of 
poisonous  gas  and  attack  from  the  air  on  the  unprotected  civilian 
population.  Next,  to  extend  regulation  of  the  food  supply  of  the 
world  in  normal  times  (such  as  has  come  partly  into  use  during 
the  last  few  years)  in  order  to  prevent  the  occurrence  of  famines, 
instead  of  calling  upon  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world,  help- 
lessly', aimlessly,  when  a famine  occurs  in  every'  few  y'ears,  taking 
off  millions  of  people  in  China,  in  India,  to  send  help,  help  which 
then  often  comes  too  late.  In  the  same  manner,  the  international 
legislature  will  appoint  a commission  to  take  charge  of  health 
protection  for  the  world.  At  present,  a plague  starts  somewhere 
in  Central  Asia,  and  travels  with  fatal  steps  westward,  enters 
Spain,  crosses  the  ocean,  and  lays  low  its  thousands  of  victims  in 
this  country.  Instead  of  try'ing  to  quarantine,  the  international 
legislature  will  make  it  its  duty  systematically  to  seek  out  the 
places  of  origin  of  the  pestilence,  and  quench  it  at  its  source,  as 
Colonel  Waring  tracked  the  y'ellow  fever  to  its  lair  in  Cuba  and 
slew  it  there. 

The  international  legislature,  besides  promoting  education 
throughout  the  world,  which  is  the  basis  of  freedom,  will  have  the 
planetary  outlook  in  all  its  procedures,  and  this  itself  will  give  it  a 
dignity  and  scope  such  as  no  parliament  has  ever  had  before. 
Besides  giving  encouragement  to  strength  wherever  it  shows  it- 
self, generously  unbinding  instead  of  churlishly'  stifling  the  newly 
arising  forces  in  trade  and  industry' — -objects  which  are  generally 
recognized  by'  those  who  have  written  on  the  subject — ^the  inter- 
national legislature  will  have  a unique  opportunity  and  duty  to 
foster  the  evolution  of  the  retarded  or  backward  portions  of  the 
human  race.  Perhaps  eight  hundred  millions  are  comprised 
under  this  head.  And  it  is  on  the  relations  of  the  civilized  to  the 
less  civilized  that  the  future  of  mankind  will  depend.  The  lands, 
the  trade  opportunities  of  the  less  civilized  have  been  the  bone  of 
contention  between  the  more  civilized.  The  colonial  rivalries  of 
the  latter  have  had  the  major  share  in  preparing  the  conditions 
that  led  to  this  war.  A change  of  policy  and  a change  of  heart  in 
respect  to  the  peoples  of  Africa  and  Asia  is  the  one  greatest  moral 


8 


prerequisite  for  the  success  of  the  league.  Yet  the  broadest 
conception  commonly  entertained  at  present  is  that  of  the  Open 
Door,  according  to  which  instead  of  a crowd  of  merchants  jostling 
each  other,  and  seeking  to  prevent  each  the  others  from  enter- 
ing the  house  where  they  intend  to  sell  their  goods,  the  door  shall 
be  open  to  all.  The  Open  Door  conception  is  designed  to  be  fair 
to  all  who  want  to  enter  the  house;  it  has  no  adequate  element  of 
fairness  towards  the  inmates.  The  broadest  conception  thus 
far  reached  in  the  treatment  of  the  natives  is  that  the  interests  of 
trade  shall  come  first,  and  after  them  as  much  human  considera- 
tion as  is  consistent  with  trade.  There  must  be  a real  change  of 
heart,  a reversal  of  the  order  of  ideas — such  gain  for  the  merchant 
of  the  West  as  is  consistent  with  the  utmost  human  rights  along 
with  the  highest  human  development  of  the  native  populations. 

The  international  legislature  should  take  the  planetary  view. 
The  world  is  to  be  one  household.  The  more  civilized  nations 
are  the  adults.  It  is  the  part  of  the  adults  to  foster  the  develop- 
ment of  the  undeveloped.  And  the  adult  peoples,  like  the  par- 
ents in  the  family,  will  gain  their  own  moral  maturity  in  the  very 
act  of  benefiting  the  helpless  and  less  mature,  and  drawing  them 
up  toward  higher  levels. 

In  this  way  the  conclave  of  the  nations  of  the  earth  by  their 
representatives,  in  a body  proceeding  from  and  overarching  all 
the  parliaments,  will  tend  more  and  more  to  insure  peace  by 
anticipating  and  forestalling  the  causes  that  lead  to  strife.  The 
idea  of  a League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  altogether  erroneous.  Peace 
depends  upon  a certain  attitude  of  mind,  and  this  cannot  be 
enforced  from  without.  You  cannot  introduce  the  spirit  of 
righteousness  into  individuals  or  peoples  with  a club.  You  can- 
not prevent  the  steam  from  generating  by  shutting  the  safety- 
valve.  And  here  I have  a word  to  say  in  regard  to  the  court  or 
Commission  of  Conciliation  in  the  case  of  non-justiciable  con- 
troversies, which  is  provided  for  in  all  the  projects  for  the  league 
that  have  come  to  my  knowledge,  and  which  I cannot  but  regard 
as  radically  unfit  to  be  the  organ  of  justice  in  deciding  a contro- 
versy between  people  and  people.  It  is  proposed  by  sorrie  that 
the  members  of  the  Commission  of  Conciliation  shall  be  selected 
ad  hoc  for  each  single  case  as  it  arises.  But  to  this  it  is  objected 
that  the  judges  selected  in  this  way,  when  the  air  is  full  of  pas- 


9 


sion,  are  sure  to  be  biased,  and  that  an  impartial  tribunal  cannot 
be  constructed  in  this  manner.  Hence  it  is  proposed  by  others 
that  the  members  of  the  Commission  of  Conciliation  should  be 
permanent,  that  they  should  hold  regular  sessions,  and  be  with- 
drawn from  the  agitations  of  the  day,  living  in  an  atmosphere  of 
Olympian  impartiality.  Neither  of  these  propositions  is  sound. 
A people  touched,  or  believing  itself  to  be  touched,  in  some  vital 
interest,  will  not  recognize  as  just  the  decision  of  a biased  tribunal, 
and  still  less  will  it  accept  the  verdict  of  men  who  are  remote  from 
the  urgent  movements  of  the  day,  and  who  therefore  cannot  be 
supposed  to  sympathize  with  or  understand  them.  The  very 
notion  of  constructing  a quasi-infallible  tribunal,  consisting  of  a 
few  persons,  is  a piece  of  that  false  idealism  which  I characterized 
at  the  beginning  of  my  address.  We  cannot  find  men  of  such 
superhuman  detachment,  such  freedom  from  the  passion  of  their 
fellow-nationals,  such  exalted,  Olympian,  impartiality. 

I look  therefore  to  the  Parliament  itself  as  the  true  resource  in 
this  matter.  Within  the  bosom  of  the  Parliament  the  contro- 
versies should  be  heard  and  adjusted.  The  Parliament  itself, 
and  not  some  court  or  commission,  should  be  the  organ  of  con- 
ciliation. The  representatives  of  the  two  parties  in  dispute  shall 
stand  up  in  the  presence  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  peoples 
of  the  earth.  They  shall  face  each  other  in  a public  hearing,  not 
in  a committee  room,  and  under  the  pressure  of  the  supreme  desire 
of  the  great  conclave  in  the  midst  of  which  they  stand,  that  the 
peace  shall  not  be  broken  and  that  right  shall  be  done,  they 
must  make  good  the  rightfulness  of  their  respective  claims. 

And  here  a new  ethical  principle  of  conciliation,  may  be  ex- 
pected to  come  into  action.  The  method  of  conciliation  at  pres- 
ent in  use  is  not  genuine  conciliation  at  all.  Each  side,  as  in 
labor  controversies,  appears  before  arbitrators  or  conciliators 
prepared  to  insist  on  the  rightfulness  of  its  claims, — seeing  only 
the  right  on  its  own  side.  The  opposite  party  as  obstinately 
insists  on  the  right,  or  what  it  conceives  to  be  the  right  on  its  side. 
The  result  at  best  is  a temporary  truce  which  leads  presently  to 
new  outbreaks.  The  ethical  principle  of  conciliation  is  exactly 
the  reverse.  Each  side  shall  be  required  as  a preliminary  to 
confess  the  full  measure  of  right  acknowledged  by  it  on  the  side 
of  its  opponent,  and  then  to  prove  that  its  own  claims  are  con- 


10 


sistent  with  those  rights  of  its  adversary  which  it  has  recognized. 
Thus,  in  a labor  dispute,  if  the  employer  begins  by  manifesting 
his  appreciation  of  whatever  he  must  admit  to  be  right  in  the 
contentions  of  the  workers  as  to  hours,  pay,  and  conditions,  and 
thus  demonstrates  his  willingness  to  meet  these  just  demands  to 
the  utmost  of  his  ability,  he  will  thereby  dispose  his  opponents 
to  relinquish  their  unfair  and  exaggerated  claims,  and  to  recog- 
nize on  their  side  what  the  employer  can  rightly  lay  claim  to  in 
the  management  and  control  of  his  business.  For  fairness  on 
the  one  side  breeds  fairness  on  the  other.  Rights  are  mutual: 
there  is  no  right  for  one  which  has  not  a correlative  right  attrib- 
utable to  the  other.  And  the  same  method  and  principle  can  be 
applied  to  the  larger  controversies  of  peoples.  Within  the  bosom 
of  the  Parliament  these  controversies  must  be  adjudicated..  The 
supreme  interest  of  all  is  that  right  shall  be  done,  because  without 
right  there  is  no  peace.  And  right  is  tested  by  its  compatibility 
with  the  opponent’s  right.  I am  under  no  illusions  as  to  any 
sudden  transformation  of  human  nature.  A new  habit  must  be 
acquired  of  estimating  what  is  just  for  oneself.  But  I believe 
that  the  great  Parliament  which  takes  the  planetary  view  is  the 
organ  which  will  gradually  educate  the  peoples  in  this  new  habit. 

There  is  .the  narrowly  national  point  of  view,  the  terrestrial 
point  of  view,  taking  account  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth, 
and  there  is  beyond  this  the  cosmic  or  spiritual  point  of  view. 
This,  religion  will  have  to  instil.  The  new  conditions  brought 
about  by  the  present  conflict  are  favorable  to  the  formation  of  a 
new  religious  ideal.  And  this  ideal  itself  will  assist  in  forming 
the  new  conditions.  Greater  even  than  freedom  and  justice  is 
love — in  a sense  vaster  than  that  which  is  usually  attributed  to 
the  word,  love  between  group  and  group,  between  people  and 
people,  is  the  sublimest  expression  of  spiritual  relations. 

I mean  a kind  of  spiritual  self-love — for  bare  altruism  will  never 
be  the  tie  that  is  needed.  Individuals  and  peoples  are  bound  to 
love  themselves.  And  if  they  are  to  love  others  passionately,, 
enduringly,  with  constancy,  with  devotion  to  the  point  of  sacri- 
fice, it  must  be  because  they  love  in  these  others  that  which  is 
complementary,  indispensable  to  themselves.  So  must  a people 
learn  to  love  that  in  others  which  they  themselves  cannot  afford 
to  miss.  For  we  are  so  made  by  nature  that  each  of  us,  individ- 


II 


uals  and  peoples,  have  many  needs,  many  intense  and  noble 
longings  which  others,  not  we,  have  the  faculty'  to  satisfy.  So 
do  we  depend  on  France  for  the  things  which  France  has  added 
to  the  spirited  possessions  of  the  human  race,  the  charm,  the 
humanitarianism,  the  clarity  of  mind.  Who  can  measure  the 
inexpressible  calamity  it  would  have  been,  not  for  France  alone 
but  for  mankind,  if  France  had  been  crushed  by  the  rude  blow 
of  the  militarist  arm!  And  so  we  need  England;  and  we  shall 
need  Germany  again  when  she  has  shaken  off,  as  she  bids  fair 
now  to  do,  the  nightmare  that  has  rested  on  her  for  fifty  years, 
and  that  she  has  spread  around  her  across  Europe.  We  shall 
not  want  to  miss  the  new  utterances  of  the  soul  of  a people  which 
expressed  itself  in  Beethoven’s  music,  in  Goethe’s  Faust  and  in 
a hundred  other  ways.  The  singular  beauty  of  the  art  of  China, 
also  unique  in  its  way,  is  a gift  not  only  for  China,  but  for  the  rest 
of  the  nations.  And  so  there  are  the  untutored,  slumbering 
peoples  of  the  earth,  in  whom  the  soul  is  just  dawning,  in  whom 
there  are  latent  capacities  of  enriching  the  life  and  culture  of  the 
world.  These  we  need.  The  mutual  need  of  these  and  such  as 
these  is  the  bond  that  must  bind  the  nations.  The  fellowship  of 
the  nations  must  be  founded  on  international  truth,  international 
justice,  and  in  the  large  sense  in  which  I have  used  the  term,  on 
international  love. 


12 


If  you  are  interested  to  know  more  about  the  Ethical  Move- 
ment in  America  and  the  work  of  its  local  organizations,  descrip- 
tive literature  will  be  sent  to  you  without  cost  on  application  to 

THE  AMERICAN  ETHICAL  UNION 
2 West  64th  Street,  New  York  City 


On  Sale  at  the  Above  Address,  or  Mailed  at  Prices  Quoted, 
the  Following 

BOOKS  AND  PAMPHLETS  ON  ETHICAL  SUBJECTS 

By  Felix  Adler.  An  Ethical  Philosophy  of  Life,  $3.  The  Religion  of  Duty, 
50  cents.  Moral  Instruction  of  Children,  $1.50.  Life  and  Destiny,  cloth,  25 
cents.  The  World  Crisis  and  Its  Meaning,  jSi. 50.  Marriage  and  Divorce,  75 
cents.  The  Spiritual  Meaning  of  Marriage,  10  cents.  The  Vision  of  New 
York  as  the  Democratic  Metropolis  of  the  Future,  10  cents.  The  Punishment 
of  Children,  10  cents.  The  Protestant  Reformation,  10  cents. 

By  William  M.  Salter.  Moral  Aspiration  and  Song  (36  Hymns  with  Music), 
25  cents. 

By  Walter  L.  Sheldon.  Old  Testament  Bible  Stories  for  the  Young,  ?I.I5. 
Citizenship  and  the  Duties  of  a Citizen,  $1.15.  The  Life  of  Jesus  for  the 
Young,  new  edition,  $i  .00.  The  Bible  from  the  Standpoint  of  Modern  Scholar- 
ship, $1.00.  A Sentiment  in  Verse  for  Every  Day  in  the  Year,  75  cents.  A 
Wisdom  Gem  for  Every  Morning  and  Evening  in  the  Year,  75  cents. 

By  Alfred  W.  Martin.  Great  Religious  Teachers  of  the  East,  $1.25.  Foun- 
dations for  Faith  in  a Future  Life,  $1.50.  The  Life  of  Jesus  in  the  Light  of  the 
Higher  Criticism,  $1.50.  The  Dawn  of  Christianity,  ^1.25.  What  Human 
Life  is  For,  50  cents.  Psychic  Tendencies  of  To-day,  $1.50.  America’s  Duty 
and  the  Coming  Internationalism,  25  cents. 

By  William  James.  Is  Life  Worth  Living,  10  cents. 

By  Horace  J.  Bridges.  Criticisms  of  Life,  $1.50.  The  Religion  of  Expe- 
rience, $1.50. 

By  F.  J.  Gould.  Children’s  Book  of  Moral  Lessons.  Four  Series,  75  cents 
each.  Stories  for  Moral  Instruction,  75  cents.  Brave  Citizens,  75  cents. 

By  Percival  Chubb.  The  Religion  of  Young  America  During  the  War — and 
After,  10  cents. 


This  Address  is  Reprinted  from  THE  STANDARD, 
to  which  Dr.  Felix  Adler  is  a Regular  Contributor, 
and  which  appears  Monthly  from  October  to  May. 
Fifteen  Cents  a Number.  One  Dollar  a Year. 
Published  by  The  American  Ethical  Union,  2 West 
64th  Street,  New  York  City.  Sample  Copies  Free 
on  Application. 


